Statutory interpretation

895:: "When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, we keep in mind that the first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. A statute is ambiguous only where it is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. When a statute is clear, however, it is given its plain meaning, and this court will not search for legislative intent; rather, that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used. This court is very hesitant to interpret a legislative act in a manner contrary to its express language, unless it is clear that a drafting error or omission has circumvented legislative intent." 1138:, reasoning "t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain ... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion". This means that the plain meaning rule (and statutory interpretation as a whole) should only be applied when there is an ambiguity. Because the meaning of words can change over time, scholars and judges typically will recommend using a dictionary to define a term that was published or written around the time the statute was enacted. 674:, there are areas of law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount. However, in areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does not necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Rather, an area of law that is not expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in the preamble of s. 91—known as the Peace, Order and Good Government clause—or the provinces residual jurisdiction of "Property and Civil Rights" under s. 92(13A) of the 1867 Constitution Act. This contrasts with other federal jurisdictions, notably the 1682:"Purposivists often focus on the legislative process, taking into account the problem that Congress was trying to solve by enacting the disputed law and asking how the statute accomplished that goal." Purposivists believe in reviewing the processes surrounding the power of the legislative body as stated in the constitution as well as the rationale that a "reasonable person conversant with the circumstances underlying enactment would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy" Purposivists would understand statutes by examining "how Congress makes its purposes known, through text and reliable accompanying materials constituting legislative history." 584:

while Salmond calls it "the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed". Interpretation of a particular statute depends upon the degree of creativity applied by the judges or the court in the reading of it, employed to achieve some stated end. It is often mentioned that common law statutes can be interpreted by using the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule or the Literal Rule. However, according to

179: 4616: 4630: 1428:". Moreover, the avoidance applies only when "it is quite impossible that Congress could have intended the result ... and where the alleged absurdity is so clear as to be obvious to most anyone". "To justify a departure from the letter of the law upon that ground, the absurdity must be so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense", with an outcome "so contrary to perceived social values that Congress could not have 'intended' it". 1387:. On June 28, 2024, in the landmark case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the doctrine of Chevron deference. The case was cited as precedent in a federal case (Tennessee v. Becerra) the very next week. Loper says, in part, "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires." 705: 615: 77: 1084: 808:

law. A person driving a motorcycle might be pulled over and the police may try to fine him if his motorcycle is not registered with the DMV. If that individual argued to the court that a motorcycle is not a "motor vehicle", then the court would have to interpret the statute to determine what the legislature meant by "motor vehicle" and whether or not the motorcycle fell within that definition and was covered by the statute.

36: 1584:

about the meaning of an enacted statute. It may also be considered unfair to depart from the literal text because a citizen reading the literal text may not have fair notice that a court would depart from its literal meaning, nor fair notice as to what meaning the court would adopt. It may also be unwise to depart from the literal text if judges are generally less likely than legislatures to enact wise policies.

998:, Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear. The rule states that where "general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated". 1236:

derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so." This means that if a later law and an earlier law are potentially—but not necessarily—in conflict, courts will adopt the reading that does not result in an implied repeal of the earlier statute. Lawmaking bodies usually need to be explicit if they intend to repeal an earlier law.

1421:, Lord Denning of the Court of Appeals attacked "those who adopt the strict literal and grammatical construction of the words" and saying that the "he literal method is now completely out-of-date replaced by the ... 'purposive' approach". On appeal, however, against Denning's decision, Lord Russell in the House of Lords "disclaim the sweeping comments of Lord Denning". 965:: "e begin our analysis by reviewing the pertinent rules of . Of course, the cardinal rule is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. To this end, we begin our inquiry with the words of the statute and, ordinarily, when the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, according to their commonly understood meaning, we end our inquiry there also." 1216:"When a will says "I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to A", the principle of reddendo singula singulis would apply as if it read "I devise all my real property, and bequeath all my personal property, to A", since the word devise is appropriate only to real property and the term bequeath is appropriate only to personal property." 1052:

with Klimas, Tadas and Vaiciukaite explaining "recitals in EC law are not considered to have independent legal value, but they can expand an ambiguous provision's scope. They cannot, however, restrict an unambiguous provision's scope, but they can be used to determine the nature of a provision, and this can have a restrictive effect."

1697:

types of sources that will be considered. Intentional theory seeks to refer to as many different sources as possible to consider the meaning or interpretation of a given statute. This theory is adjacent to a contextualist theory, which prioritizes the use of context to determine why a legislature enacted any given statute.

1174:

mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes). The rule can also be applied when the general words precede the more specific ones, with the general term limited to things similar to those specifically listed. While some scholars see

800:. While cases occasionally focus on a few key words or phrases, judges may occasionally turn to viewing a case in its whole in order to gain deeper understanding. The totality of the language of a particular case allows the Justices presiding to better consider their rulings when it comes to these key words and phrases. 1613:

The rule set out in the Convention is essentially that the text of a treaty is decisive unless it either leaves the meaning ambiguous, or obscure, or leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Recourse to "supplementary means of interpretation" is allowed only in that case, like the

1466:

Critics of the use of canons argue that canons impute some sort of "omniscience" to the legislature, suggesting that it is aware of the canons when constructing the laws. In addition, it is argued that the canons give a credence to judges who want to construct the law a certain way, imparting a false

1404:

when the defendant placed toxic chemicals on frequently touched surfaces of a friend. The statute in question made using a chemical weapon a crime; however, the separation of power between states and the federal government would be infringed upon if the Supreme Court interpreted the statute to extend

1395:

If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US, this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation

1416:

The application of this rule in the United Kingdom is not entirely clear. The literal meaning rule – that if "Parliament's meaning is clear, that meaning is binding no matter how absurd the result may seem" – has a tension with the "golden rule", permitting courts to avoid absurd results in cases of

475:

is the exemplar. In Roman and civil law, a statute (or code) guides the magistrate, but there is no judicial precedent. In England, Parliament historically failed to enact a comprehensive code of legislation, which is why it was left to the courts to develop the common law; and having decided a case

1688:

Textualists believe that everything which the courts need in deciding on cases are enumerated in the text of legislative statutes. In other words, if any other purpose was intended by the legislature then it would have been written within the statutes and since it is not written, it implies that no

1474:

Some scholars argue that interpretive canons should be understood as an open set, despite conventional assumptions that traditional canons capture all relevant language generalizations. Empirical evidence, for example, suggests that ordinary people readily incorporate a "nonbinary gender canon" and

793:. It is a tenet of statutory construction that the legislature is supreme (assuming constitutionality) when creating law and that the court is merely an interpreter of the law. Nevertheless, in practice, by performing the construction the court can make sweeping changes in the operation of the law. 601:

interpretation with guidance furnished by the accepted principles. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. The function of the courts is only to expound and not to legislate.

1235:

as: "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or

1144:

As opposed to the plain meaning rule, the technical meaning rule applies the specific context and rules of grammar that are applied if the term is well defined and understood in an industry setting. To determine if there is a technical meaning, judges will look at whether the surrounding words are

1696:

Intentionalists refer to the specific intent of the enacting legislature on a specific issue. Intentionalists can also focus on general intent. It is important to note that private motives do not eliminate the common goal that the legislature carries. This theory differs from others mainly on the

1583:

It may be considered undemocratic to ignore the literal text, because only that text was passed through democratic processes. Indeed, there may be no single legislative "intent" other than the literal text that was enacted by the legislature, because different legislators may have different views

1196:

for short, may exclude everything listed of the same type as the things listed, without excluding things of a different type. In order to properly execute this canon, you must find the normative baseline, and determine whether the gap runs through the normative basis, or falls outside of it. This

1051:

However in the case of the European Union, a supranational body, the recitals in Union legislation must specify the reasons the operative provisions were adopted, and if they do not, the legislation is void. This has been interpreted by the courts as giving them a role in statutory interpretation

807:

Assume, for example, that a statute mandates that all motor vehicles travelling on a public roadway must be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). If the statute does not define the term "motor vehicles", then that term will have to be interpreted if questions arise in a court of

1437:

When a statute may be interpreted to abridge long-held rights of individuals or states, or make a large policy change, courts will not interpret the statute to make the change unless the legislature clearly stated it. This rule is based on the assumption that the legislature would not make major

1173:

When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are

583:

The age old process of application of the enacted law has led to the formulation of certain rules of interpretation. According to Cross, "Interpretation is the process by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the purpose of applying it to the situation before them",

1561:

It is controversial whether there is a hierarchy between interpretation methods. Germans prefer a "grammatical" (literal) interpretation, because the statutory text has a democratic legitimation, and "sensible" interpretations are risky, in particular in view of German history. "Sensible" means

1206:

When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute. This canon is often used to narrow the interpretation of terms in a list. We understand words in an act, particularly listed in words, by considering the words surrounding them. If two or more words

909:, 118 N.M. 234, 242, 880 P.2d 845, 853 (1994) "The words of a statute ... should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary", as long as the ordinary meaning does "not render the statute's application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust." 811:

There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says "motor vehicles", then the court is most likely to

803:

Statutory interpretation is the process by which a court looks at a statute and determines what it means. A statute, which is a bill or law passed by the legislature, imposes obligations and rules on the people. Although legislature makes the Statute, it may be open to interpretation and have

1591:

The freedom of interpretation varies by area of law. Criminal law and tax law must be interpreted very strictly, and never to the disadvantage of citizens, but liability law requires more elaborate interpretation, because here (usually) both parties are citizens. Here the statute may even be

483:

Accordingly, a particular interpretation of a statute would also become binding, and it became necessary to introduce a consistent framework for statutory interpretation. In the construction (interpretation) of statutes, the principal aim of the court must be to carry out the "intention of

600:

A statute is an edict of a legislature, and the conventional way of interpreting a statute is to seek the "intention" of its maker. It is the judicature's duty to act upon the true intention of the legislature or the mens or sentential legis. The courts have to objectively determine the

1689:

other purpose or meaning was intended. By looking at the statutory structure and hearing the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words, textualists believe that they would respect the constitutional separation of power and best respect

935:(2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230 .) We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation, but rather examine the entire substance of the statute in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision, construing its words in context and harmonizing its various parts. ( 913:, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) When the meaning of a statute is unclear or ambiguous, we have recognized that it is "the high duty and responsibility of the judicial branch of government to facilitate and promote the legislature's accomplishment of its purpose." 1364:

Deference canons instruct the court to defer to the interpretation of another institution, such as an administrative agency or Congress. These canons reflect an understanding that the judiciary is not the only branch of government entrusted with constitutional responsibility.

826:: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." 1145:

technical, and whether the act was directed to a technical audience. They can also look to the title, the purpose, or the legislative history to indicate whether there is technical meaning implied in the statute. This concept is most easily defined in the case

442:

in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In

812:

construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorised vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not "aeroplanes" or "bicycles" even though aeroplanes are vehicles propelled by a motor and bicycles may be used on a roadway.

777:

Unforeseen situations are inevitable, and new technologies and cultures make application of existing laws difficult. (e.g. does the use of a new cloning technique create an embryo within the meaning of statute enacted when embryos could only be created by

1191:

Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as". This canon,

539:

A statute is to be interpreted so as to uphold international treaties to which the UK is a party. In the case of EU law, any statutory provision which contravenes the principle embodied in the EU treaties that EU law is supreme is effectively void:

830:, 447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. ... ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." 1068:. Proponents argue that a judge always has a choice between competing canons that lead to different results, so judicial discretion is only hidden through the use of canons, not reduced. These canons can be divided into two major groups: 1009:

Legislative bodies themselves may try to influence or assist the courts in interpreting their laws by placing into the legislation itself statements to that effect. These provisions have many different names, but are typically noted as:

949:: "As in all statutory construction cases, we begin with the language of the statute. The first step is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case." 905:: "The principal command of statutory construction is that the court should determine and effectuate the intent of the legislature using the plain language of the statute as the primary indicator of legislative intent." 858:

312 F.3rd 1052 (2002), dissent at 328 F.3d 567 (2003) at 575, Judge Kleinfeld stated "it is 'a cardinal principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.'

1376:

If a statute administered by an agency is ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the courts will defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This rule of deference was formulated by the

1047:

In most legislatures internationally, these provisions of the bill simply give the legislature's goals and desired effects of the law, and are considered non-substantive and non-enforceable in and of themselves.

765:

Words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent. They are ambiguous and change in meaning over time. The word "let" used to mean 'prevent' or 'hinder' and now means 'allow'. The word "peculiar" is used to mean

885:: "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." 1610:, notably Articles 31–33. Some states (such as the United States) are not a parties to the treaty, but recognize that the Convention is, at least in part, merely a codification of customary international law. 2883:

Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules of Canons About How Statutes are to be Construed, 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395 (1950) republished with permission in 5 Green Bag 297 (2002).

815:

In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

2988:

Harold Anthony Lloyd, 'Recasting Canons of Interpretation and Construction into 'Canonical' Queries: Further Canonical Queries of Presented or Transmitted Text' (2023) 58 Wake Forest L Rev 1047, 1047-1086

2942: 1478:

Other scholars argue that the canons should be reformulated as "canonical" or archetypical queries helping to direct genuine inquiry rather than purporting to somehow help provide answers in themselves.

1396:

only when one interpretation was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises constitutional doubts.

931:(1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 94 .) Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, we look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. ( 1207:

grouped together have similar meaning, but are not equally comprehensive, a more general word will be limited and qualified by a more specific one. There is almost a gravitational pull on one another.

686:, the states will have authority over the relevant matter in their respective jurisdictions, unless the state's definitions of their statutes conflicts with federally established or recognized rights 761:

interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters. Legislation may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:

1587:

But it may also seem unfair to ignore the intent of the legislators, or the system of the statutes. So for instance in Dutch law, no general priority sequence for the above methods is recognized.

1424:

For jurisprudence in the United States, "an absurdity is not mere oddity. The absurdity bar is high, as it should be. The result must be preposterous, one that 'no reasonable person could intend

1331:, except where such would deprive the defendant of bedrock, foundational rights that the federal government intended to be the minimum floor that the states were not allowed to fall beneath: 1001:

A statute shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes. Where there is an apparent inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation.

975:: "The first and often last step in interpreting a statute is to examine the language of the statute. We will not, however, interpret a statute that is clear and unambiguous on its face." 3320: 571:; but while Parliament has exclusive competence to legislate, the courts (mindful of their historic role of having developed the entire system of common law) retain sole competence to 1382: 3356: 1679:

are the two most prevalent methods of statutory interpretation. Also recognized is the theory of intentionalists, which is to prioritize and consider sources beyond the text.

988:

It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act. The

951: 1417:

ambiguity. At times, courts are not "concerned with what parliament intended, but simply with what it has said in the statute". Different judges have different views. In

1405:

to local crimes. Therefore, the Court utilized the canon of constitutional avoidance and decided to "read the statute more narrowly, to exclude the defendant's conduct".

1265:(1804): "It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains ..." 532: 1347:: "statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit." This canon can be likened to the doctrine of 1155:

Where one reading of a statute would make one or more parts of the statute redundant and another reading would avoid the redundancy, the other reading is preferred.:

2894: 3215: 1528:(1689–1755) believed that courts should act as "the mouth of the law", but soon it was found that some interpretation is inevitable. Following the German scholar 588:, author of texts on statutory interpretation, there are no such simple devices to elucidate complex statutes, "nstead there are a thousand and one interpretative 804:

ambiguities. Statutory interpretation is the process of resolving those ambiguities and deciding how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case.

1164:

There is a presumption that when similar statutory provisions are found in comparable statutory schemes, interpreters should presumptively apply the same way.

946: 542: 3296: 3248: 2975: 2927: 2289: 1060:

Also known as canons of construction, canons give common sense guidance to courts in interpreting the meaning of statutes. Most canons emerge from the

1130:

When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the

414: 17: 955:, 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002); "nless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." 3263: 1628:

Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favor. Some of the better-known rules of construction methods are:

1064:

process through the choices of judges. Critics of the use of canons argue that the canons constrain judges and limit the ability of the courts to

1281:(Australia). However, legislation that is intended to be consistent with fundamental rights can be overridden by clear and unambiguous language. 189: 1327: 927:, 4th District: "Our role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. ( 3384:

Menahem Pasternak, Christophe Rico, Tax Interpretation, Planning, and Avoidance: Some Linguistic Analysis, 23 Akron Tax Journal, 33 (2008) (

1438:

changes in a vague or unclear way, and to ensure that voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.

1256: 499:

Statutes may be presumed to incorporate certain components, as Parliament is "presumed" to have intended their inclusion. For example:

141: 838:(1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete. 722: 632: 113: 94: 49: 3353: 4597: 1607: 1119:

Textual canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text. Some of the canons are still known by their traditional

2133:, 49 F. Supp. 846, 859 (W.D. La. 1943), where the issue involved interpretation of the words "board, lodging, or other facilities" 1823:, so in the UK an individual who is specifically targeted by a statute will normally have standing to bring a challenge by way of 1542:

Systematic interpretation: considering the context of provisions, if only by acknowledging in which chapter a provision is listed.

484:

Parliament", and the English courts developed three main rules (plus some minor ones) to assist them in the task. These were: the

120: 3340: 3328:

Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decisions and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395

871:: "Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." 3080:

Hart & Sacks, Henry M. & Albert M. (1994). "The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law".

2749: 2660: 781:

Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as the need for compromise or catering to special

407: 1726: 1721: 1273: 670:

jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In

1091: 127: 3425: 3053:

Calabresi, Guido (2003). "An Introduction to Legal Thought: Four Approaches to Law and to the Allocation of Body Parts".

861: 2143: 1685:"In contrast to purposivists, textualists focus on the words of a statute, emphasizing text over any unstated purpose." 563:

are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the

2461: 1872: 1378: 1309:(2008). This is almost a junior version of the vagueness doctrine, and can be used for both criminal or civil penalty. 4023: 3581: 3480: 3134: 2496: 1915: 1343: 744: 654: 241: 223: 160: 109: 63: 1289:

In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See

4137: 4006: 400: 774:

unusual, e.g. "kangaroos are peculiar to Australia", and "it's very peculiar to see a kangaroo outside Australia".

4592: 3939: 3840: 3401: 2196:

Klimas, Tadas and Vaiciukaite, Jurate, "The Law of Recitals in European Community Legislation" (July 14, 2008).

438:. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some 4099: 3733: 967:

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland v. Director of Finance for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

726: 636: 98: 2810:

1 All ER 142, 143 (HL). The judgment, however, was affirmed on the basis of the statutory language regardless.

2264: 1245:

Substantive canons instruct the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results.

1188:("the express mention of one thing excludes all others" or "the expression of one is the exclusion of others") 4685: 3452: 1471:

argued that every canon had a "counter-canon" that would lead to the opposite interpretation of the statute.

383: 373: 201: 55: 3385: 4259: 3738: 845: 682:, where it is presumed that if legislation is not enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal 4254: 924: 2703:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2088-2090 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018). 4229: 3728: 1529: 328: 134: 4312: 2038: 2004: 1690: 962: 868: 568: 2335: 4680: 4107: 4089: 2737: 2719:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2093 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018). 2687:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2085 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018). 2648: 2444: 2420: 2385: 1855: 1839: 1803: 1749: 972: 902: 205: 4441: 1616: 1095: 197: 4670: 4482: 4269: 3758: 3743: 2448: 2424: 2128: 2043: 2009: 1770: 1760: 1716: 1539:

Historical interpretation: using the legislative history, to reveal the intent of the legislator.

882: 715: 625: 555:("of the same kind"), so that words are to be construed in sympathy with their immediate context. 273: 259: 87: 3367: 4675: 4537: 4522: 3415: 2067:"Using a moot to develop students' understanding of human cloning and statutory interpretation" 1943:

R v. Secretary of State for the Environment expert Spath Holme, (2001) 1 All ER 195, p. 216(HL)

1149:, where the term "chicken" was disputed as either a technical word or if plain meaning applied. 892: 471:

Statutory interpretation first became significant in common law systems, of which historically

358: 3216:"Textual Gerrymandering: The Eclipse of Republican Government in an Era of Statutory Populism" 2990: 2741: 2652: 2368: 2350: 4641: 4234: 3912: 3723: 3290: 3242: 3192: 2969: 2921: 2051: 2017: 1562:

different things to different people. The modern, common-law perception that courts actually

530:

A statute is presumed not to apply retrospectively (whereas the common law is "declaratory":

456: 1487:

The common textual canons of statutory construction employed in American jurisprudence are:

4362: 3708: 2440: 2416: 2114:

Brannon, Valerie (February 11, 2021). "Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, Trends".

1432: 789:

Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced. This requires

324: 8: 4517: 3657: 3574: 3314:

CRS Report for Congress: "Statutory interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends"

2265:"Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)" 1317: 854: 352: 320: 2610: 521:

A statute is presumed not to remove an individual's liberty, vested rights, or property.

4332: 3991: 3845: 3830: 3808: 3552: 3532: 3485: 3475: 3151: 2236: 2091: 2066: 1954: 1807: 1706: 1660: 1651: 1350: 1131: 823: 368: 348: 294: 1255:

National statute must be construed so as not to conflict with international law. See

4317: 4239: 4077: 3820: 3815: 3768: 3693: 3687: 3527: 3445: 3130: 3062: 2745: 2656: 2492: 2201: 2096: 1911: 1868: 1711: 1633: 1065: 493: 304: 2032: 472: 4322: 4289: 3788: 3652: 3647: 3612: 3107: 2775:

Legislative History and Statutory Interpretation: The Relevance of English Practice

2086: 2078: 1765: 1735: 1467:

sense of justification to their otherwise arbitrary process. In a classic article,

667: 337: 4571: 4544: 4532: 4512: 4446: 4424: 4404: 4399: 4379: 4244: 4224: 4219: 4122: 4082: 3793: 3718: 3642: 3627: 3547: 3360: 3152:"A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules" 2317: 1955:"A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules" 1893: 1824: 1731: 1446:(Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time") 585: 551: 511: 477: 388: 343: 1606:

The interpretation of international treaties is governed by another treaty, the

1598:

in exceptional cases, if otherwise a patently unreasonable result would follow.

4648: 4456: 4374: 3963: 3929: 3880: 3865: 3637: 3542: 3522: 3512: 3336:

636 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1981) discusses most aspects of statutory construction.

1745: 1550: 1468: 1450: 1284: 782: 564: 451:

may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the

4664: 4502: 4461: 4347: 4327: 4299: 4249: 4214: 4188: 4183: 4176: 4127: 4067: 3907: 3897: 3855: 3778: 3773: 3703: 3662: 3586: 3373: 3313: 2632: 2616: 2400: 2220: 2147: 2082: 1645: 1475:"quantifier domain restriction canon" in the interpretation of legal rules. 1262: 1227: 876: 835: 675: 485: 378: 299: 1693:. Critiques of modern textualism on the United States Supreme Court abound. 1536:

Grammatical interpretation: using the literal meaning of the statutory text.

4634: 4384: 4352: 4307: 4045: 4040: 4011: 3924: 3902: 3870: 3803: 3783: 3677: 3617: 3607: 3559: 3517: 3495: 3438: 3066: 2100: 1639: 683: 527:

A statute is presumed not to empower a person to commit a criminal offence.

489: 2874:

John F Manning, 'The absurdity doctrine' (2003) 116 Harv L Rev 2387, 2390.

434:. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a 4556: 4497: 4487: 4284: 4279: 4117: 4018: 3934: 3893: 3860: 3825: 3748: 3672: 3622: 3537: 3386:

http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/taxjournal/atj23/docs/Pasternak08.pdf

3111: 2853:, 491 U.S. 440, 470–71 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment)). 2355: 2290:"A Guide to Reading, Interpreting and Applying Statutes - Georgetown Law" 1755: 1672: 1525: 879:, 149 S.E. 541, 542 (1929). This is known as the rule against surplusage. 452: 431: 333: 3098:

Manning, John F. (2006). "What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?".

2847:

Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. United States EPA

1271:

Statute does not violate fundamental societal values. See, for example,

4620: 4549: 4429: 4367: 4112: 4033: 4028: 3986: 3968: 3956: 3917: 3763: 3753: 3713: 3698: 3682: 3632: 3569: 3564: 1931: 1739: 1676: 1656: 1454: 1061: 729: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 639: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 460: 444: 363: 3093: 3091: 828:

Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.

4527: 4492: 4434: 4409: 4274: 4171: 4159: 4144: 4132: 4060: 3978: 3951: 3835: 1932:

Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps

1412:

The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.

1341:

National statute must be construed in favor of Native Americans. See

758: 679: 448: 439: 4615: 2205: 704: 614: 76: 4576: 4561: 4264: 4149: 3946: 3490: 3088: 1998: 1987:

GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th Edition, p.4

560: 505: 3346: 3341:

Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning

2324:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 602. 4466: 4414: 4394: 4342: 4154: 4072: 3888: 3850: 3798: 3323:

is the authoritative text on the rules of statutory construction.

1908:

Understanding Common Law Legislation: Drafting and Interpretation

1557:), as it appears from legislative history, or other observations. 435: 2192: 2190: 1978:

Venkataswami Naidu v. Narasram Naraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361, p.363

4566: 4419: 4164: 4055: 4050: 3996: 3667: 3391:

Victoria F. Nourse, Misreading Law Misreading Democracy (2016).

3264:"Textualism 3.0: Statutory Interpretation After Justice Scalia" 2691:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 29–30. 2503:

Blurred signposts to criminality will not suffice to create it.

1820: 1566:

law is very different. In a German perception, courts can only

1449:

When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. See

671: 3129:(1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford university press. p. 104. 503:

Offences defined in criminal statutes are presumed to require

4507: 4451: 4357: 4198: 4001: 3500: 3381:, by Ruth Sullivan, 1997. Canadian examples and explanations. 2734:

Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation

2645:

Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation

2187: 1120: 865:, 529 U.S. 362, 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)." 188:

deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a

2941:

Tobia, Kevin; Slocum, Brian G.; Nourse, Victoria F. (2022).

2723:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 30. 2707:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 30. 2437:

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union

1852:

R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (No 2)

1810:

470, 53 Cr App R 221, 1 All ER 347, HL, reversing 2 QB 418

1312:

Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty (United States)

4389: 4337: 4193: 3591: 3507: 3316:(public domain - can be copied into article with citations) 2991:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4369755

1614:

preparatory works, also known by the French designation of

518:

A statute is presumed to make no changes in the common law.

2454: 1867:

Rupert Cross, Statutory interpretation, 3rd Edition, p.34

1197:

canon is not favored by most scholars, lawyers, or judges.

3461: 1500:– "the express mention of one thing excludes all others" 3370:, 59 NYU Annual Survey Of American Law 231, 238 (2003). 3363:, The Champion Magazine (NACDL), January/February 2006. 3193:"The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction" 2820:

Texas Brine Co. LLC v. American Arbitration Association

819:

Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:

604: 3430: 3347:"Llewellyn's Dueling Canons, One to Seven: A Critique" 1532:(1779–1861) the four main interpretation methods are: 3349:. New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006. 3082:

William N. Eskridge Jr. & Phillip P. Frickey Eds.

2721:

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends

2705:

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends

2689:

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends

1147:

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp.

947:

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

480:, the decision would become binding on later courts. 3277:(3). Archived from the original on September 2, 2020 2908:(1). Archived from the original on November 30, 2018 983: 3176:Taylor, George H. (1995). "Structural Textualism". 2198:

ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law

2030: 1666: 1392:

Avoidance canon (canon of constitutional avoidance)

1222:("the general does not derogate from the specific") 430:is the process by which courts interpret and apply 101:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 3214:Eskridge, William N.; Nourse, Victoria F. (2021). 2031: 1997: 917:, 117 N.M. 346, 353, 871 P.2d 1352, 1359 (1994); 549:It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted 3334:United States of America v. William C. Scrimgeour 2956:. Archived from the original on February 18, 2022 2940: 4662: 3368:"Dice Loading" Rules Of Statutory Interpretation 3295:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 3247:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 3079: 3007:(7th ed.). Thomas Reuters. p. § 47:17. 2974:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 2926:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 2553:, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); 2172:, 6th Edition, Vol. 1A, §20.12 (West Group 2000) 1369:Deference to administrative interpretations (US 1004: 524:A statute is presumed not to apply to the Crown. 1579:All of the above methods may seem reasonable: 796:Moreover, courts must also often view a case's 595: 3374:The Rules of Statutory Construction (Virginia) 3213: 2834:Reading Law: the interpretation of legal texts 2541:, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting) 2489:Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 2259: 2257: 1996: 1515:Common, technical, legal, or trade definition. 1182:, however most judges do not hold this belief. 3446: 3229:. Archived from the original on March 8, 2022 2587:Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs 2064: 1545:Teleological interpretation: considering the 1443:Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant 1328:Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs 1268:Interpretation in light of fundamental values 1043:, or of either house in multi-chamber bodies. 408: 186:The examples and perspective in this article 3017:2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:23 2851:Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice 2849:, 846 F.3d 492, 517 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting 2831: 2629:Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council 1571: 1384:Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council 3354:"Statutory Construction: Not For The Timid" 3190: 2943:"Statutory Interpretation from the Outside" 2486: 2254: 2065:Pattinson, Shaun D.; Kind, Vanessa (2017). 1894:Bennion on statutory interpretation: a code 1883:SALMOND: "Jurisprudence"11th Edition, p.152 1593: 1441: 1348: 64:Learn how and when to remove these messages 3453: 3439: 2130:Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., No 213 415: 401: 3052: 2487:Scalia, Antonin; Garne, Bryan A. (2012). 2184:2d, Vol. 73, "Statutes" (West Group 2001) 2090: 1601: 1297:(declining to apply the rule of lenity); 745:Learn how and when to remove this message 655:Learn how and when to remove this message 242:Learn how and when to remove this message 224:Learn how and when to remove this message 161:Learn how and when to remove this message 4598:History of the American legal profession 3197:Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 3124: 1608:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 27:Judicial interpretation of statutory law 3097: 2832:Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan (2012). 2113: 1910:. Oxford University Press. p. 12. 1905: 1519: 1494:– "of the same kinds, class, or nature" 1170:("of the same kinds, class, or nature") 14: 4663: 3261: 3191:Easterbrook, Frank (January 1, 1988). 3175: 3149: 2892: 2316: 1952: 899:, 365 Ark. 465, 231 S.W.3d 619. (2006) 887:Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 3434: 2231: 2229: 1506:– "a word is known by its associates" 1498:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius 1400:The avoidance canon was discussed in 1240: 1203:("a word is known by its associates") 1186:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius 979:, 757 N.E.2d 1037, 1039, 1040 (2001). 943:(People) (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040 889:, 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996); 578: 509:(a guilty intention by the accused): 3005:2A Sutherland Statutory Construction 2462:"A man's jail term turns on a comma" 2398:Holy Trinity Church v. United States 2237:"Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)" 2146:. The European Union. Archived from 2052:participating institution membership 2018:participating institution membership 1727:Legal interpretation in South Africa 1722:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory 1274:Holy Trinity Church v. United States 1078: 832:Connecticut National Bank v. Germain 727:adding citations to reliable sources 698: 637:adding citations to reliable sources 608: 605:Conflict of laws within a federation 172: 99:adding citations to reliable sources 70: 29: 2348:Finch, Emily and Fafinski, Stefan. 1512:– "upon the same matter or subject" 1419:Nothman v. London Borough of Barnet 959:, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2nd Cir. 1994). 24: 3307: 3002: 2799:Nothman v London Borough of Barnet 2694: 2226: 1220:Generalia specialibus non derogant 969:, 343 Md. 567, 683 A.2d 512 (1996) 313:General theories of interpretation 25: 4697: 3582:Restitution and unjust enrichment 3395: 3321:Sutherland Statutory Construction 3041:Sutherland Statutory Construction 3028:Sutherland Statutory Construction 2762:Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. 2612:Chickasaw Nation v. United States 2351:Law Express: English Legal System 2170:Sutherland Statutory Construction 1793:, Liverpool John Mores University 1791:Notes on the English Legal System 1344:Chickasaw Nation v. United States 1114: 984:Internal and external consistency 45:This article has multiple issues. 18:Lex posterior derogat legi priori 4629: 4628: 4614: 1667:Statutory interpretation methods 1082: 915:State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos 703: 689: 613: 177: 75: 34: 4593:History of the legal profession 3255: 3207: 3184: 3169: 3143: 3118: 3073: 3046: 3033: 3020: 3011: 2996: 2982: 2934: 2886: 2877: 2868: 2856: 2840: 2836:. Thomson Reuters. p. 237. 2825: 2813: 2804: 2792: 2780: 2767: 2755: 2726: 2710: 2678: 2666: 2637: 2622: 2604: 2592: 2580: 2568: 2556: 2544: 2532: 2520: 2508: 2480: 2430: 2406: 2391: 2375: 2361: 2342: 2328: 2318:Garner, Bryan A.. Ed. In Chief. 2310: 2282: 2210: 2175: 2162: 2136: 2122: 2107: 2058: 2024: 1990: 1981: 1972: 1946: 1937: 1934:, U.P., AIR 1968 SC 102, p. 104 1924: 1623: 939:(2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 112 .)" 921:, 2010-NMSC-041, August 9, 2010 714:needs additional citations for 624:needs additional citations for 287:General rules of interpretation 86:needs additional citations for 53:or discuss these issues on the 3223:New York University Law Review 2118:(published April 5, 2018): 25. 2116:Congressional Research Service 1899: 1886: 1877: 1861: 1845: 1830: 1813: 1796: 1783: 1482: 1338:'Indian' canon (United States) 459:such as administrative agency 13: 1: 2773:William S Jordan III (1994), 2673:United States v. Jin Fuey Moy 1776: 1161:("part of the same material") 1005:Statements of the legislature 374:Common good constitutionalism 274:Constitutional interpretation 3262:Nourse, Victoria F. (2019). 3150:Nourse, Victoria F. (2012). 3125:Katzmann, Robert A. (2014). 2893:Nourse, Victoria F. (2018). 2447:309 (2 September 2004), 1953:Nourse, Victoria F. (2012). 1771:UK Interpretation Act (1850) 1766:Sui generis § Statutory 1461: 1359: 1258:Murray v. The Charming Betsy 957:United States v. Piervinanzi 873:Red Ash Coal Corp. v. Absher 846:9th Circuit Court of Appeals 596:Intention of the legislature 7: 3426:Statutory Construction Blog 2822:, 955 F.3d 482, 486 (2020). 2675:, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916). 1906:Bennion, F (May 28, 2009). 1896:, accessed 25 November 2022 1700: 1379:United States Supreme Court 952:Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. 925:California Court of Appeals 567:this principle is known as 200:, discuss the issue on the 10: 4702: 4260:International legal theory 3739:International slavery laws 3734:International human rights 3729:International criminal law 2217:Caminetti v. United States 1671:Within the United States, 1530:Friedrich Carl von Savigny 1225: 1213:("rendering each to each") 1136:Caminetti v. United States 1029:, sometimes suffixed with 694: 466: 110:"Statutory interpretation" 4608: 4585: 4475: 4313:Administration of justice 4298: 4207: 4098: 3977: 3879: 3600: 3468: 3416:Resources in your library 2865:, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930). 2071:Medical Law International 2039:Oxford English Dictionary 2005:Oxford English Dictionary 1211:Reddendo singula singulis 1055: 963:Maryland Court of Appeals 869:Supreme Court of Virginia 569:parliamentary sovereignty 4090:Basic structure doctrine 3940:Natural and legal rights 3821:Public international law 3407:Statutory interpretation 3379:Statutory Interpretation 3339:Brudney & Ditslear, 2738:Harvard University Press 2649:Harvard University Press 2515:McNally v. United States 2339:, 984 S.W.2d 695 (1998). 2083:10.1177/0968533217726350 1930:Supreme Court of India, 1291:McNally v. United States 1066:legislate from the bench 973:Indiana Court of Appeals 941:Alford v. Superior Court 903:New Mexico Supreme Court 478:reasons for the decision 428:Statutory interpretation 279:Statutory interpretation 4270:Principle of typicality 3744:International trade law 3460: 3366:Corrigan & Thomas, 3100:SSRN Electronic Journal 2044:Oxford University Press 2010:Oxford University Press 1761:Statutory term analysis 1717:Judicial interpretation 1524:The French philosopher 1307:United States v. Santos 1152:Rule against surplusage 883:Supreme Court of Alaska 260:Judicial interpretation 3359:June 29, 2011, at the 2801:1 All E.R. 1243, 1246. 2764:, 490 U.S. 504 (1989). 2643:Einer Elhauge (2008). 2601:, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). 2369:"US Legal definitions" 2322:Black's Law Dictionary 2297:www.law.georgetown.edu 2182:American Jurisprudence 1602:International treaties 1594: 1572: 1554: 1442: 1349: 893:Arkansas Supreme Court 848:: In the dissent from 791:statutory construction 559:Where legislation and 359:Strict constructionism 4265:Principle of legality 4024:Delegated legislation 3724:Intellectual property 2529:, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) 2517:, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) 2441:[2004] HCA 40 2417:[1994] HCA 15 1789:Trevor Lyons (2016), 1691:legislative supremacy 1659:vs. consideration of 1617:travaux préparatoires 1402:Bond v. United States 836:112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 457:delegated legislation 4686:Legal interpretation 4483:Barristers' chambers 4425:Legal representation 4363:Justice of the peace 3709:Financial regulation 3112:10.2139/ssrn.2849247 2789:3 QBD 693, 707 (CA). 2787:R v Hertford College 2599:Dombrowski v Pfister 1892:Stanford Libraries, 1520:European perceptions 1433:Clear statement rule 1333:Dombrowski v Pfister 1263:6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 1096:adding missing items 842:" 503 U.S. 249, 254. 723:improve this article 633:improve this article 206:create a new article 198:improve this article 95:improve this article 4518:Election commission 4230:Expressive function 3759:Landlord–tenant law 3658:Consumer protection 3345:Sinclair, Michael, 3055:Stanford Law Review 2950:Columbia Law Review 2863:Crooks v. Harrelson 2633:467 U.S. 837 (1984) 2589:538 U.S. 721 (2003) 2577:546 U.S. 243 (2006) 2565:501 U.S. 452 (1991) 2563:Gregory v. Ashcroft 2551:Scarborough v. U.S. 2336:State Farm v. Brown 2042:(Online ed.). 2008:(Online ed.). 1318:Gregory v. Ashcroft 1303:Scarborough v. U.S. 929:People v. Jefferson 855:Silveira v. Lockyer 447:jurisdictions, the 353:legislative history 321:Living Constitution 4476:Legal institutions 4343:Lawsuit/Litigation 4333:Dispute resolution 4138:Catholic canon law 3846:State of emergency 3809:Will and testament 3533:Law of obligations 3486:Constitutional law 3476:Administrative law 3271:Alabama Law Review 3003:Singer, Norman J. 2575:Gonzales v. Oregon 2527:Muscarello v. U.S. 2468:. November 4, 2015 2168:Norman J. Singer, 1707:Interpretation Act 1661:legislative intent 1652:purposive approach 1409:Avoiding absurdity 1351:contra proferentem 1323:Gonzales v. Oregon 1295:Muscarello v. U.S. 1241:Substantive canons 1132:plain meaning rule 1094:; you can help by 1075:Substantive canons 933:People v. Lawrence 919:New Mexico v. Juan 897:Farrell v. Farrell 862:Williams v. Taylor 824:U.S. Supreme Court 579:General principles 369:Purposive approach 349:legislative intent 295:Plain meaning rule 4658: 4657: 4318:Constitutionalism 4240:Law and economics 4078:Act of parliament 3816:Product liability 3769:Legal archaeology 3694:Environmental law 3688:Entertainment law 3528:International law 3402:Library resources 3319:The multi-volume 2777:, 29 USF L Rev 1. 2750:978-0-674-02460-1 2661:978-0-674-02460-1 2200:, Vol. 15, 2008. 2150:on March 17, 2011 2050:(Subscription or 2016:(Subscription or 1802:Sweet v Parsley 1712:Judicial activism 1573:Rechtsfortbildung 1504:Noscitur a sociis 1201:Noscitur a sociis 1180:Noscitur a sociis 1141:Technical meaning 1112: 1111: 1041:Sense of Congress 798:statutory context 755: 754: 747: 665: 664: 657: 425: 424: 329:Living instrument 252: 251: 244: 234: 233: 226: 208:, as appropriate. 171: 170: 163: 145: 68: 16:(Redirected from 4693: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4619: 4618: 4442:Question of fact 4323:Criminal justice 3653:Construction law 3648:Conflict of laws 3613:Agricultural law 3455: 3448: 3441: 3432: 3431: 3326:Karl Llewellyn, 3301: 3300: 3294: 3286: 3284: 3282: 3268: 3259: 3253: 3252: 3246: 3238: 3236: 3234: 3220: 3211: 3205: 3204: 3188: 3182: 3181: 3173: 3167: 3166: 3159:Yale Law Journal 3156: 3147: 3141: 3140: 3127:Judging statutes 3122: 3116: 3115: 3095: 3086: 3085: 3077: 3071: 3070: 3061:(6): 2113–2151. 3050: 3044: 3037: 3031: 3024: 3018: 3015: 3009: 3008: 3000: 2994: 2986: 2980: 2979: 2973: 2965: 2963: 2961: 2947: 2938: 2932: 2931: 2925: 2917: 2915: 2913: 2902:Texas Law Review 2899: 2895:"The Canon Wars" 2890: 2884: 2881: 2875: 2872: 2866: 2860: 2854: 2844: 2838: 2837: 2829: 2823: 2817: 2811: 2808: 2802: 2796: 2790: 2784: 2778: 2771: 2765: 2759: 2753: 2730: 2724: 2714: 2708: 2698: 2692: 2682: 2676: 2670: 2664: 2641: 2635: 2626: 2620: 2608: 2602: 2596: 2590: 2584: 2578: 2572: 2566: 2560: 2554: 2548: 2542: 2536: 2530: 2524: 2518: 2512: 2506: 2505: 2491:. Thomson/West. 2484: 2478: 2477: 2475: 2473: 2458: 2452: 2434: 2428: 2413:Coco v The Queen 2410: 2404: 2395: 2389: 2379: 2373: 2372: 2365: 2359: 2346: 2340: 2332: 2326: 2325: 2314: 2308: 2307: 2305: 2303: 2294: 2286: 2280: 2279: 2277: 2275: 2261: 2252: 2251: 2249: 2247: 2233: 2224: 2214: 2208: 2194: 2185: 2179: 2173: 2166: 2160: 2159: 2157: 2155: 2140: 2134: 2126: 2120: 2119: 2111: 2105: 2104: 2094: 2062: 2056: 2055: 2047: 2035: 2028: 2022: 2021: 2013: 2001: 1994: 1988: 1985: 1979: 1976: 1970: 1969: 1962:Yale Law Journal 1959: 1950: 1944: 1941: 1935: 1928: 1922: 1921: 1903: 1897: 1890: 1884: 1881: 1875: 1865: 1859: 1849: 1843: 1834: 1828: 1817: 1811: 1800: 1794: 1787: 1736:Original meaning 1597: 1575: 1549:of the statute ( 1445: 1427: 1355:in contract law. 1354: 1279:Coco v The Queen 1107: 1104: 1086: 1085: 1079: 937:People v. Acosta 877:153 Va. 332, 335 841: 750: 743: 739: 736: 730: 707: 699: 660: 653: 649: 646: 640: 617: 609: 417: 410: 403: 338:original meaning 256: 255: 247: 240: 229: 222: 218: 215: 209: 181: 180: 173: 166: 159: 155: 152: 146: 144: 103: 79: 71: 60: 38: 37: 30: 21: 4701: 4700: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4681:Legal reasoning 4661: 4660: 4659: 4654: 4627: 4613: 4604: 4581: 4572:Political party 4545:Legal education 4533:Law enforcement 4513:Court of equity 4471: 4447:Question of law 4400:Practice of law 4380:Judicial review 4294: 4245:Legal formalism 4225:Comparative law 4220:Contract theory 4203: 4123:Legal pluralism 4094: 4083:Act of Congress 4007:Executive order 3973: 3875: 3794:Nationality law 3719:Immigration law 3643:Competition law 3596: 3464: 3459: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3398: 3361:Wayback Machine 3310: 3308:Further reading 3305: 3304: 3288: 3287: 3280: 3278: 3266: 3260: 3256: 3240: 3239: 3232: 3230: 3218: 3212: 3208: 3189: 3185: 3174: 3170: 3154: 3148: 3144: 3137: 3123: 3119: 3096: 3089: 3078: 3074: 3051: 3047: 3038: 3034: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3012: 3001: 2997: 2987: 2983: 2967: 2966: 2959: 2957: 2945: 2939: 2935: 2919: 2918: 2911: 2909: 2897: 2891: 2887: 2882: 2878: 2873: 2869: 2861: 2857: 2845: 2841: 2830: 2826: 2818: 2814: 2809: 2805: 2797: 2793: 2785: 2781: 2772: 2768: 2760: 2756: 2732:Einer Elhauge. 2731: 2727: 2715: 2711: 2699: 2695: 2683: 2679: 2671: 2667: 2642: 2638: 2627: 2623: 2609: 2605: 2597: 2593: 2585: 2581: 2573: 2569: 2561: 2557: 2549: 2545: 2537: 2533: 2525: 2521: 2513: 2509: 2499: 2485: 2481: 2471: 2469: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2435: 2431: 2411: 2407: 2396: 2392: 2380: 2376: 2367: 2366: 2362: 2347: 2343: 2333: 2329: 2315: 2311: 2301: 2299: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2273: 2271: 2263: 2262: 2255: 2245: 2243: 2235: 2234: 2227: 2215: 2211: 2195: 2188: 2180: 2176: 2167: 2163: 2153: 2151: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2127: 2123: 2112: 2108: 2063: 2059: 2049: 2029: 2025: 2015: 1995: 1991: 1986: 1982: 1977: 1973: 1957: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1929: 1925: 1918: 1904: 1900: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1878: 1866: 1862: 1850: 1846: 1835: 1831: 1825:judicial review 1818: 1814: 1801: 1797: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1732:Original intent 1703: 1669: 1626: 1604: 1522: 1510:In pari materia 1492:Ejusdem generis 1485: 1464: 1425: 1362: 1243: 1230: 1194:Expressio unius 1178:as a subset of 1176:Ejusdem generis 1168:Ejusdem generis 1159:In Pari Materia 1117: 1108: 1102: 1099: 1083: 1058: 1007: 996:eiusdem generis 991:ejusdem generis 986: 977:Ashley v. State 911:State v. Rowell 839: 783:interest groups 778:fertilisation?) 751: 740: 734: 731: 720: 708: 697: 692: 661: 650: 644: 641: 630: 618: 607: 598: 586:Francis Bennion 581: 552:ejusdem generis 512:Sweet v Parsley 469: 421: 389:Legal formalism 346: 344:Original intent 248: 237: 236: 235: 230: 219: 213: 210: 195: 182: 178: 167: 156: 150: 147: 104: 102: 92: 80: 39: 35: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4699: 4689: 4688: 4683: 4678: 4673: 4671:Sources of law 4656: 4655: 4653: 4652: 4645: 4638: 4624: 4621:Law portal 4609: 4606: 4605: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4589: 4587: 4583: 4582: 4580: 4579: 4574: 4569: 4564: 4559: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4530: 4525: 4520: 4515: 4510: 4505: 4500: 4495: 4490: 4485: 4479: 4477: 4473: 4472: 4470: 4469: 4464: 4459: 4457:Trial advocacy 4454: 4449: 4444: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4432: 4427: 4422: 4417: 4412: 4407: 4397: 4392: 4387: 4382: 4377: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4365: 4355: 4350: 4345: 4340: 4335: 4330: 4325: 4320: 4315: 4310: 4304: 4302: 4296: 4295: 4293: 4292: 4287: 4282: 4277: 4272: 4267: 4262: 4257: 4252: 4247: 4242: 4237: 4232: 4227: 4222: 4217: 4211: 4209: 4205: 4204: 4202: 4201: 4196: 4191: 4186: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4147: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4125: 4120: 4115: 4110: 4104: 4102: 4096: 4095: 4093: 4092: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4080: 4075: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4053: 4048: 4043: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4031: 4026: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4009: 4004: 3994: 3989: 3987:Ballot measure 3983: 3981: 3975: 3974: 3972: 3971: 3966: 3964:Legal treatise 3961: 3960: 3959: 3954: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3932: 3930:Letters patent 3927: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3910: 3905: 3900: 3891: 3885: 3883: 3881:Sources of law 3877: 3876: 3874: 3873: 3868: 3866:Unenforced law 3863: 3858: 3853: 3848: 3843: 3838: 3833: 3828: 3823: 3818: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3796: 3791: 3786: 3781: 3776: 3771: 3766: 3761: 3756: 3751: 3746: 3741: 3736: 3731: 3726: 3721: 3716: 3711: 3706: 3701: 3696: 3691: 3685: 3680: 3675: 3670: 3665: 3660: 3655: 3650: 3645: 3640: 3638:Commercial law 3635: 3630: 3625: 3620: 3615: 3610: 3604: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3595: 3594: 3589: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3567: 3562: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3550: 3540: 3535: 3530: 3525: 3520: 3515: 3510: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3493: 3488: 3483: 3478: 3472: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3458: 3457: 3450: 3443: 3435: 3429: 3428: 3419: 3418: 3412: 3411: 3400: 3399: 3397: 3396:External links 3394: 3393: 3392: 3389: 3382: 3376: 3371: 3364: 3350: 3343: 3337: 3331: 3324: 3317: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3254: 3206: 3183: 3168: 3142: 3135: 3117: 3087: 3072: 3045: 3032: 3019: 3010: 2995: 2981: 2933: 2885: 2876: 2867: 2855: 2839: 2824: 2812: 2803: 2791: 2779: 2766: 2754: 2725: 2709: 2693: 2677: 2665: 2636: 2621: 2603: 2591: 2579: 2567: 2555: 2543: 2531: 2519: 2507: 2497: 2479: 2453: 2429: 2405: 2390: 2374: 2360: 2341: 2327: 2309: 2281: 2253: 2225: 2209: 2186: 2174: 2161: 2135: 2121: 2106: 2077:(3): 111–133. 2057: 2023: 1989: 1980: 1971: 1945: 1936: 1923: 1916: 1898: 1885: 1876: 1873:978-0406049711 1860: 1844: 1829: 1812: 1795: 1781: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1746:Pepper v. Hart 1742: 1729: 1724: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1702: 1699: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1654: 1648: 1642: 1636: 1625: 1622: 1603: 1600: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1559: 1558: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1507: 1501: 1495: 1484: 1481: 1469:Karl Llewellyn 1463: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1451:implied repeal 1447: 1439: 1435: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1374: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1339: 1336: 1313: 1310: 1287: 1285:Rule of lenity 1282: 1269: 1266: 1253: 1250:Charming Betsy 1242: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1226:Main article: 1223: 1217: 1214: 1208: 1204: 1198: 1189: 1183: 1171: 1165: 1162: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1142: 1139: 1128: 1116: 1115:Textual canons 1113: 1110: 1109: 1089: 1087: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1072:Textual canons 1057: 1054: 1045: 1044: 1038: 1024: 1018: 1006: 1003: 985: 982: 981: 980: 970: 960: 944: 922: 907:State v. Ogden 900: 890: 880: 866: 843: 787: 786: 779: 775: 753: 752: 711: 709: 702: 696: 693: 691: 688: 663: 662: 621: 619: 612: 606: 603: 597: 594: 580: 577: 565:United Kingdom 557: 556: 547: 537: 528: 525: 522: 519: 516: 468: 465: 423: 422: 420: 419: 412: 405: 397: 394: 393: 392: 391: 386: 381: 376: 371: 366: 361: 356: 341: 331: 315: 314: 310: 309: 308: 307: 302: 297: 289: 288: 284: 283: 282: 281: 276: 268: 267: 263: 262: 250: 249: 232: 231: 192:of the subject 190:worldwide view 185: 183: 176: 169: 168: 83: 81: 74: 69: 43: 42: 40: 33: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4698: 4687: 4684: 4682: 4679: 4677: 4676:Statutory law 4674: 4672: 4669: 4668: 4666: 4651: 4650: 4646: 4644: 4643: 4639: 4637: 4636: 4625: 4623: 4622: 4617: 4611: 4610: 4607: 4599: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4591: 4590: 4588: 4584: 4578: 4575: 4573: 4570: 4568: 4565: 4563: 4560: 4558: 4555: 4551: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4543: 4539: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4531: 4529: 4526: 4524: 4521: 4519: 4516: 4514: 4511: 4509: 4506: 4504: 4503:Civil society 4501: 4499: 4496: 4494: 4491: 4489: 4486: 4484: 4481: 4480: 4478: 4474: 4468: 4465: 4463: 4462:Trier of fact 4460: 4458: 4455: 4453: 4450: 4448: 4445: 4443: 4440: 4436: 4433: 4431: 4428: 4426: 4423: 4421: 4418: 4416: 4413: 4411: 4408: 4406: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4398: 4396: 4393: 4391: 4388: 4386: 4383: 4381: 4378: 4376: 4373: 4369: 4366: 4364: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4356: 4354: 4351: 4349: 4348:Legal opinion 4346: 4344: 4341: 4339: 4336: 4334: 4331: 4329: 4328:Court-martial 4326: 4324: 4321: 4319: 4316: 4314: 4311: 4309: 4306: 4305: 4303: 4301: 4300:Jurisprudence 4297: 4291: 4288: 4286: 4283: 4281: 4278: 4276: 4273: 4271: 4268: 4266: 4263: 4261: 4258: 4256: 4253: 4251: 4248: 4246: 4243: 4241: 4238: 4236: 4233: 4231: 4228: 4226: 4223: 4221: 4218: 4216: 4213: 4212: 4210: 4206: 4200: 4197: 4195: 4192: 4190: 4189:Statutory law 4187: 4185: 4184:Socialist law 4182: 4178: 4177:Byzantine law 4175: 4174: 4173: 4170: 4166: 4163: 4161: 4158: 4156: 4153: 4151: 4148: 4146: 4143: 4139: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128:Religious law 4126: 4124: 4121: 4119: 4116: 4114: 4111: 4109: 4106: 4105: 4103: 4101: 4100:Legal systems 4097: 4091: 4088: 4084: 4081: 4079: 4076: 4074: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068:Statutory law 4066: 4062: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4054: 4052: 4049: 4047: 4044: 4042: 4039: 4035: 4032: 4030: 4027: 4025: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4017: 4013: 4010: 4008: 4005: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3995: 3993: 3990: 3988: 3985: 3984: 3982: 3980: 3976: 3970: 3967: 3965: 3962: 3958: 3955: 3953: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3931: 3928: 3926: 3923: 3919: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3911: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3901: 3899: 3898:Statutory law 3895: 3892: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3884: 3882: 3878: 3872: 3869: 3867: 3864: 3862: 3859: 3857: 3856:Transport law 3854: 3852: 3849: 3847: 3844: 3842: 3839: 3837: 3834: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3824: 3822: 3819: 3817: 3814: 3810: 3807: 3805: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3785: 3782: 3780: 3777: 3775: 3774:Legal fiction 3772: 3770: 3767: 3765: 3762: 3760: 3757: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3747: 3745: 3742: 3740: 3737: 3735: 3732: 3730: 3727: 3725: 3722: 3720: 3717: 3715: 3712: 3710: 3707: 3705: 3704:Financial law 3702: 3700: 3697: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3686: 3684: 3681: 3679: 3676: 3674: 3671: 3669: 3666: 3664: 3663:Corporate law 3661: 3659: 3656: 3654: 3651: 3649: 3646: 3644: 3641: 3639: 3636: 3634: 3631: 3629: 3626: 3624: 3621: 3619: 3616: 3614: 3611: 3609: 3606: 3605: 3603: 3599: 3593: 3590: 3588: 3587:Statutory law 3585: 3583: 3580: 3576: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3568: 3566: 3563: 3561: 3558: 3554: 3551: 3549: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3541: 3539: 3536: 3534: 3531: 3529: 3526: 3524: 3521: 3519: 3516: 3514: 3511: 3509: 3506: 3502: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3494: 3492: 3489: 3487: 3484: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3474: 3473: 3471: 3469:Core subjects 3467: 3463: 3456: 3451: 3449: 3444: 3442: 3437: 3436: 3433: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3408: 3403: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3380: 3377: 3375: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3355: 3351: 3348: 3344: 3342: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3298: 3292: 3276: 3272: 3265: 3258: 3250: 3244: 3228: 3224: 3217: 3210: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3187: 3179: 3172: 3164: 3160: 3153: 3146: 3138: 3136:9780199362134 3132: 3128: 3121: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3094: 3092: 3083: 3076: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3049: 3042: 3036: 3029: 3023: 3014: 3006: 2999: 2992: 2985: 2977: 2971: 2955: 2951: 2944: 2937: 2929: 2923: 2907: 2903: 2896: 2889: 2880: 2871: 2864: 2859: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2835: 2828: 2821: 2816: 2807: 2800: 2795: 2788: 2783: 2776: 2770: 2763: 2758: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2729: 2722: 2718: 2713: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2690: 2686: 2681: 2674: 2669: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2640: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2607: 2600: 2595: 2588: 2583: 2576: 2571: 2564: 2559: 2552: 2547: 2540: 2539:Evans v. U.S. 2535: 2528: 2523: 2516: 2511: 2504: 2500: 2498:9780314275554 2494: 2490: 2483: 2467: 2466:The Economist 2463: 2457: 2450: 2446: 2443:, (2004) 221 2442: 2438: 2433: 2426: 2422: 2419:, (1994) 179 2418: 2414: 2409: 2402: 2399: 2394: 2387: 2383: 2382:The Vera Cruz 2378: 2370: 2364: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2345: 2338: 2337: 2331: 2323: 2319: 2313: 2298: 2291: 2285: 2270: 2266: 2260: 2258: 2242: 2238: 2232: 2230: 2222: 2218: 2213: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2193: 2191: 2183: 2178: 2171: 2165: 2149: 2145: 2139: 2132: 2131: 2125: 2117: 2110: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2061: 2053: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2034: 2027: 2019: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2000: 1993: 1984: 1975: 1967: 1963: 1956: 1949: 1940: 1933: 1927: 1919: 1917:9780199564101 1913: 1909: 1902: 1895: 1889: 1880: 1874: 1870: 1864: 1857: 1853: 1848: 1841: 1838: 1833: 1826: 1822: 1816: 1809: 1805: 1799: 1792: 1786: 1782: 1772: 1769: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1720: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1698: 1694: 1692: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1674: 1662: 1658: 1655: 1653: 1649: 1647: 1646:mischief rule 1643: 1641: 1637: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1621: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1609: 1599: 1596: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1570:develop law ( 1569: 1565: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1531: 1527: 1514: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1470: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1422: 1420: 1411: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1353: 1352: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1337: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1299:Evans v. U.S. 1296: 1292: 1288: 1286: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1234: 1233:The Vera Cruz 1231:Described in 1229: 1228:lex specialis 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1127:Plain meaning 1126: 1125: 1124: 1122: 1106: 1103:February 2021 1097: 1093: 1090:This list is 1088: 1081: 1080: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1067: 1063: 1053: 1049: 1042: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1016: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1002: 999: 997: 993: 992: 978: 974: 971: 968: 964: 961: 958: 954: 953: 948: 945: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 923: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 901: 898: 894: 891: 888: 884: 881: 878: 874: 870: 867: 864: 863: 857: 856: 852:rehearing of 851: 847: 844: 837: 833: 829: 825: 822: 821: 820: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 799: 794: 792: 784: 780: 776: 773: 769: 764: 763: 762: 760: 749: 746: 738: 728: 724: 718: 717: 712:This section 710: 706: 701: 700: 690:United States 687: 685: 681: 677: 676:United States 673: 669: 659: 656: 648: 638: 634: 628: 627: 622:This section 620: 616: 611: 610: 602: 593: 591: 587: 576: 574: 570: 566: 562: 554: 553: 548: 545: 544: 538: 535: 534: 529: 526: 523: 520: 517: 514: 513: 508: 507: 502: 501: 500: 497: 495: 491: 487: 486:mischief rule 481: 479: 474: 464: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 441: 437: 433: 429: 418: 413: 411: 406: 404: 399: 398: 396: 395: 390: 387: 385: 384:Legal process 382: 380: 379:Legal realism 377: 375: 372: 370: 367: 365: 362: 360: 357: 354: 350: 345: 342: 339: 335: 332: 330: 326: 322: 319: 318: 317: 316: 312: 311: 306: 303: 301: 300:Mischief rule 298: 296: 293: 292: 291: 290: 286: 285: 280: 277: 275: 272: 271: 270: 269: 265: 264: 261: 258: 257: 254: 246: 243: 228: 225: 217: 207: 203: 199: 193: 191: 184: 175: 174: 165: 162: 154: 143: 140: 136: 133: 129: 126: 122: 119: 115: 112: – 111: 107: 106:Find sources: 100: 96: 90: 89: 84:This article 82: 78: 73: 72: 67: 65: 58: 57: 52: 51: 46: 41: 32: 31: 19: 4647: 4640: 4626: 4612: 4385:Jurisdiction 4353:Legal remedy 4308:Adjudication 4208:Legal theory 4046:Ratification 4041:Promulgation 4012:Proclamation 3992:Codification 3925:Human rights 3913:Divine right 3903:Constitution 3871:Women in law 3789:Military law 3784:Marriage law 3779:Maritime law 3678:Election law 3618:Aviation law 3608:Abortion law 3560:Property law 3496:Criminal law 3406: 3378: 3333: 3327: 3291:cite journal 3279:. Retrieved 3274: 3270: 3257: 3243:cite journal 3231:. Retrieved 3226: 3222: 3209: 3200: 3196: 3186: 3178:B.U. L. Rev. 3177: 3171: 3162: 3158: 3145: 3126: 3120: 3103: 3099: 3081: 3075: 3058: 3054: 3048: 3040: 3035: 3027: 3022: 3013: 3004: 2998: 2984: 2970:cite journal 2958:. Retrieved 2953: 2949: 2936: 2922:cite journal 2910:. Retrieved 2905: 2901: 2888: 2879: 2870: 2862: 2858: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2833: 2827: 2819: 2815: 2806: 2798: 2794: 2786: 2782: 2774: 2769: 2761: 2757: 2733: 2728: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2672: 2668: 2644: 2639: 2628: 2624: 2611: 2606: 2598: 2594: 2586: 2582: 2574: 2570: 2562: 2558: 2550: 2546: 2538: 2534: 2526: 2522: 2514: 2510: 2502: 2488: 2482: 2470:. Retrieved 2465: 2456: 2451:(Australia). 2436: 2432: 2427:(Australia). 2412: 2408: 2401:143 U.S. 457 2397: 2393: 2384:, (1884) 10 2381: 2377: 2363: 2349: 2344: 2334: 2330: 2321: 2312: 2300:. Retrieved 2296: 2284: 2272:. Retrieved 2268: 2244:. Retrieved 2240: 2221:242 U.S. 470 2216: 2212: 2197: 2181: 2177: 2169: 2164: 2152:. Retrieved 2148:the original 2138: 2129: 2124: 2115: 2109: 2074: 2070: 2060: 2037: 2026: 2003: 1992: 1983: 1974: 1965: 1961: 1948: 1939: 1926: 1907: 1901: 1888: 1879: 1863: 1851: 1847: 1836: 1832: 1815: 1798: 1790: 1785: 1744: 1695: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1670: 1640:literal rule 1627: 1624:Philosophies 1615: 1612: 1605: 1595:contra legem 1592:interpreted 1590: 1578: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1546: 1523: 1509: 1503: 1497: 1491: 1486: 1477: 1473: 1465: 1423: 1418: 1415: 1401: 1399: 1383: 1370: 1363: 1342: 1332: 1326: 1322: 1316: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1278: 1272: 1257: 1249: 1244: 1232: 1219: 1210: 1200: 1193: 1185: 1179: 1175: 1167: 1158: 1146: 1135: 1118: 1100: 1059: 1050: 1046: 1040: 1034: 1030: 1027:Declarations 1026: 1020: 1014: 1008: 1000: 995: 990: 989: 987: 976: 966: 956: 950: 940: 936: 932: 928: 918: 914: 910: 906: 896: 886: 872: 860: 853: 849: 831: 827: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 797: 795: 790: 788: 771: 767: 756: 741: 732: 721:Please help 716:verification 713: 684:Constitution 666: 651: 642: 631:Please help 626:verification 623: 599: 589: 582: 572: 558: 550: 541: 531: 510: 504: 498: 490:literal rule 482: 470: 427: 426: 278: 253: 238: 220: 211: 187: 157: 148: 138: 131: 124: 117: 105: 93:Please help 88:verification 85: 61: 54: 48: 47:Please help 44: 4557:Legislature 4488:Bureaucracy 4285:Rule of man 4280:Rule of law 4255:Libertarian 4118:Chinese law 4019:Legislation 3969:Regulations 3957:Law reports 3935:Natural law 3831:Reparations 3826:Refugee law 3749:Jurimetrics 3690:(Media law) 3628:Banking law 3623:Amnesty law 3601:Disciplines 3538:Private law 3180:: 321, 327. 2653:pp. 237–239 2617:534 U.S. 84 2472:November 9, 2356:Pearson plc 1756:Rule of law 1673:purposivism 1634:golden rule 1555:ratio legis 1526:Montesquieu 1483:U.S. courts 1325:; see also 1321:; see also 494:golden rule 461:regulations 453:legislature 432:legislation 334:Originalism 325:Living tree 305:Golden rule 4665:Categories 4550:Law school 4430:Prosecutor 4368:Magistrate 4155:Jewish law 4113:Common law 4034:Rulemaking 4029:Regulation 3979:Law making 3918:Divine law 3894:Legal code 3841:Sports law 3764:Law of war 3714:Health law 3699:Family law 3683:Energy law 3633:Bankruptcy 3570:Punishment 3565:Public law 3281:October 5, 3233:October 5, 2960:October 5, 2912:October 5, 2717:Bond v. US 2701:Bond v. US 2685:Bond v. US 2449:High Court 2425:High Court 2354:, p. 215 ( 2269:Justia Law 2241:Justia Law 2144:"Recitals" 2054:required.) 2033:"peculiar" 2020:required.) 1837:Shaw v DPP 1777:References 1740:Textualism 1677:textualism 1657:Textualism 1455:derogation 1373:deference) 1092:incomplete 1062:common law 735:March 2016 645:March 2016 575:statutes. 543:Factortame 533:Shaw v DPP 492:, and the 476:and given 445:common law 364:Textualism 151:March 2016 121:newspapers 50:improve it 4528:Judiciary 4523:Executive 4498:The bench 4435:Solicitor 4410:Barrister 4290:Sociology 4275:Pseudolaw 4215:Anarchist 4172:Roman law 4160:Parsi law 4145:Hindu law 4133:Canon law 4108:Civil law 4061:Concordat 3952:Precedent 3861:Trust law 3836:Space law 3673:Drugs law 3543:Procedure 3481:Civil law 3352:Jon May, 2302:March 11, 2274:April 14, 2246:April 14, 1462:Criticism 1360:Deference 1035:of Intent 1031:of Policy 770:specific 759:judiciary 680:Australia 573:interpret 449:judiciary 440:ambiguity 214:June 2024 202:talk page 56:talk page 4635:Category 4577:Tribunal 4562:Military 4405:Attorney 4375:Judgment 4235:Feminist 4150:Jain law 3947:Case law 3668:Cyberlaw 3575:Corporal 3553:Criminal 3523:Evidence 3513:Doctrine 3491:Contract 3357:Archived 3067:12908477 2740:(2008), 2320:(1999). 2101:28943724 1819:As with 1806:132, 2 1738:— 1734:— 1701:See also 1021:Findings 1015:Recitals 590:criteria 561:case law 506:mens rea 196:You may 4649:Outline 4586:History 4493:The bar 4467:Verdict 4415:Counsel 4395:Justice 4250:History 4073:Statute 3889:Charter 3851:Tax law 3799:Probate 3330:(1950). 3084:: 1148. 3043:§ 47:27 3030:§ 47:16 2386:App Cas 2206:1159604 2092:5598875 1568:further 1547:purpose 1371:Chevron 1123:names. 850:en banc 695:Meaning 668:Federal 473:England 467:History 455:and to 436:statute 135:scholar 4567:Police 4538:Agency 4420:Lawyer 4165:Sharia 4056:Treaty 4051:Repeal 3997:Decree 3908:Custom 3804:Estate 3754:Labour 3518:Equity 3404:about 3133: 3106:(70). 3065: 2748: 2742:p. 148 2659: 2619:(2001) 2495: 2403:(1892) 2358:2018). 2223:(1917) 2204: 2154:May 9, 2099: 2089: 1914: 1871: 1821:EU law 1056:Canons 672:Canada 488:, the 137: 130: 123: 116: 108: 4642:Index 4508:Court 4452:Trial 4358:Judge 4199:Yassa 4002:Edict 3548:Civil 3501:Crime 3267:(PDF) 3219:(PDF) 3203:: 59. 3155:(PDF) 2946:(PDF) 2898:(PDF) 2439: 2423:427, 2415: 2293:(PDF) 2048: 2014: 1999:"let" 1958:(PDF) 1551:Latin 1277:, or 1252:canon 1121:Latin 266:Forms 204:, or 142:JSTOR 128:books 4390:Jury 4338:Fiqh 4194:Xeer 3592:Tort 3508:Deed 3297:link 3283:2022 3249:link 3235:2022 3165:(1). 3131:ISBN 3063:PMID 2976:link 2962:2022 2928:link 2914:2022 2746:ISBN 2657:ISBN 2493:ISBN 2474:2015 2304:2022 2276:2023 2248:2023 2202:SSRN 2156:2011 2097:PMID 1968:(1). 1912:ISBN 1869:ISBN 1675:and 1650:The 1644:The 1638:The 1632:The 1564:make 1453:and 1315:See 1037:; or 994:(or 768:both 757:The 678:and 114:news 3462:Law 3163:122 3108:doi 3104:106 3039:2A 3026:2A 2954:122 2445:CLR 2421:CLR 2087:PMC 2079:doi 1966:122 1858:603 1842:220 1808:WLR 1752:573 1576:). 1381:in 1134:in 1098:. 1033:or 772:and 725:by 635:by 592:". 97:by 4667:: 3896:/ 3388:). 3293:}} 3289:{{ 3275:70 3273:. 3269:. 3245:}} 3241:{{ 3227:96 3225:. 3221:. 3201:11 3199:. 3195:. 3161:. 3157:. 3102:. 3090:^ 3059:55 3057:. 2972:}} 2968:{{ 2952:. 2948:. 2924:}} 2920:{{ 2906:97 2904:. 2900:. 2744:. 2736:. 2655:. 2651:. 2647:. 2631:, 2615:, 2501:. 2464:. 2388:59 2295:. 2267:. 2256:^ 2239:. 2228:^ 2219:, 2189:^ 2095:. 2085:. 2075:17 2073:. 2069:. 2036:. 2002:. 1964:. 1960:. 1856:AC 1854:1 1840:AC 1804:AC 1750:AC 1620:. 1553:: 1305:; 1301:; 1293:; 1261:, 875:, 834:, 536:). 496:. 463:. 351:, 327:/ 323:/ 59:. 3454:e 3447:t 3440:v 3299:) 3285:. 3251:) 3237:. 3139:. 3114:. 3110:: 3069:. 2993:. 2978:) 2964:. 2930:) 2916:. 2752:. 2663:. 2476:. 2371:. 2306:. 2278:. 2250:. 2158:. 2103:. 2081:: 2046:. 2012:. 1920:. 1827:. 1457:. 1426:' 1335:. 1105:) 1101:( 1023:; 1017:; 840:' 785:. 748:) 742:( 737:) 733:( 719:. 658:) 652:( 647:) 643:( 629:. 546:. 515:. 416:e 409:t 402:v 355:) 347:( 340:) 336:( 245:) 239:( 227:) 221:( 216:) 212:( 194:. 164:) 158:( 153:) 149:( 139:· 132:· 125:· 118:· 91:. 66:) 62:( 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.